[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: self contained library

From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak
Subject: Re: self contained library
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:34:56 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Philip Willoughby wrote:
> Today, Ricardo Fabbri wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>>> Do you mean by "self-contained" that it should even contain the C
>>> library functions it uses?
>> I don't want the C library and system libraries to be in the
>> "self-contained" library.  I will require the user to have libc6, for
>> example.  What I do not want is non-programmers having to install or
>> compile a whole list of not very common dependencies (which is numerous
>> for my project).
> Why not just build a tarball of all the dependencies - at least that way
> you don't have to worry about building a .a from PIC objects and
> building one big .so from it.
> You also don't have to worry about future comaptibility - just because
> it works now doesn't mean it always will...
I agree, but this is a "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" 
problem: for the moment, I *need* a single stand-alone .so (which is not 
that hard to build) with all the dependencies in it - including libc. It's 
a company policy thing.

Anyways, this is how I solved the problem - but that doesn't mean anyone
else should do the same thing - I just said what I'd done in the same type 
of situation.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]